The Steel Down Of 9/11

Originally posted by coven83
I think the best explanation for all of the odd occurrences that happened that day comes from Judy Wood

We're sorry, but Judy Wood's "work" isn't accepted in the 9/11 research community. She is a proven disinformation artist. Please check your facts and try your post again.


Great pictues, OP.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by ANOK


Creep deformation does not do what we see in those pics lol.

Oh? So, please enlighten me. What caused it? Oh..and creep wasn't the ONLY cause of the deformations.

What are you taking about? Are you admitting that the 2001 bombs were placed directly on the columns? But so what, the comment was not that important lol.

Re-Read my post and try to figure it out.

The important point you should focus on is the signs of extremely high temperatures, not possible from an office fires, shown in the steel. When those steel beams were deformed they were at a malleable temperature (temp at which the steel can be worked, or deformed), which starts around 2,000 °F (1,090 °C). There is simply no way that steel got that hot in an hour from office fires. For a start off the room wouldn't even get that hot in an hour, it would have to be much hotter than 2,000 °F to cause the steel to get to that temp, or even anywhere close...

You know nothing about creep and what temperatures this can start. .

steel.keytometals.com...

Start there.

Oh...so Anok.... I just purchased a few 12 foot steel columns. I need them bent into a horseshoe shape. Can you please tell me how to bend it? Will a bomb do it? Themite? Suitcase Nukes?

Originally posted by thegameisup


Oh, because you don't have a strong argument you have to stoop to the pick on spelling game!

It was a joke...get a sense of humor.

That doesn't excuse the fact that the source I provided totally rules out you 'gravity' theory!

Oh, so why did they fall down toward earth?

I could teach you a thing or two about physics, but I doubt you'll understand what I'm talking about because physics seems to be a subject you struggle with.

Well...since you are not familiar with gravity yet, I'm not sure you will be able to teach me anything new. But hey, thanks for the offer.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Oh? So, please enlighten me. What caused it? Oh..and creep wasn't the ONLY cause of the deformations.

Creep does not deform steel into pretzels, use some common sense.

Re-Read my post and try to figure it out.

I don't have time for riddles.

You know nothing about creep and what temperatures this can start. .

steel.keytometals.com...

Start there.

You're going to have to quote what it is that you think can cause creep to turn steel beams into pretzels. I don't see it in what you linked to. Don't call me stupid for not finding what you're talking about, treat me like I'm stupid and quote your point. How hard is that?

Oh...so Anok.... I just purchased a few 12 foot steel columns. I need them bent into a horseshoe shape. Can you please tell me how to bend it? Will a bomb do it? Themite? Suitcase Nukes?

Well if you tried to do it while the steel was still cold you'd have a hard time mate. I don't understand your question really? I have already said it would take heat, more heat than an office fire can supply. What supplied that heat I couldn't tell you. Because I can't tell you doesn't mean you are right. Strange logic you have.

We have facts, and then we have speculation. I try to stick to the facts, you want to have a discussion based on speculation, because you are scared of the facts.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by thegameisup


Oh, because you don't have a strong argument you have to stoop to the pick on spelling game!

It was a joke...get a sense of humor.

That doesn't excuse the fact that the source I provided totally rules out you 'gravity' theory!

Oh, so why did they fall down toward earth?

I could teach you a thing or two about physics, but I doubt you'll understand what I'm talking about because physics seems to be a subject you struggle with.

Well...since you are not familiar with gravity yet, I'm not sure you will be able to teach me anything new. But hey, thanks for the offer.

I have one alright, but I know you make those kind of remarks to side-track from my very important post, which you have no answers for.

Gravity alone did not make them fall, they were happily standing on their own until the explosives were initiated!

You're welcome for the lesson in gravity BTW, anytime.

BTW, you never did comment on the post I made on the last page, where I provided a source to the info I posted, you know, the one you side-tracked when you went into teacher mode and pulled me up for a typo!

See, I do have a sense of humour, here's a smiley to prove it...

So, here's the kicker. You need to be a metallurgist to understand, and even quantify on this stuff. So if you are not, then all the pictures and accusations fall on deaf scientific ears and blind scientific eyes. Let real qualified people who study this stuff comment further, and state your credentials.

Originally posted by thegameisup

BTW, you never did comment on the post I made on the last page, where I provided a source to the info I posted,

Leslie Robertson lead structural engineer for the World Trade Centers.

"We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.

And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two."

Originally posted by charlyv
So, here's the kicker. You need to be a metallurgist to understand, and even quantify on this stuff. So if you are not, then all the pictures and accusations fall on deaf scientific ears. Let real qualified people who study this stuff comment further, and state your credentials.

Some things are just common sense mate. We are not discussing anything someone familiar with elementary physics and engineering would not be able to understand.

It doesn't take a metallurgist to tell you cold steel does not bend in the same way hot steel does, and the steel from the WTC is consistent with hot steel being deformed.

I beams are hard to bend by their design.

Beam theory shows that the I-shaped section is a very efficient form for carrying both bending and shear loads in the plane of the web. On the other hand, the cross-section has a reduced capacity in the transverse direction, and is also inefficient in carrying torsion, for which hollow structural sections are often preferred**.

en.wikipedia.org...

** Box columns, as used for the vertical core columns.

reply to post by waypastvne


You know it really doesn't matter how much force the plane imparted on the structure, the only role the plane had was to start the fire.

Before you argue, what is NIST's hypothesis again?

Sagging trusses pulled in columns, basically, right?

So going by NIST the plane impact didn't even need to happen for the towers to collapse from fire. After all building 7 did, right?

So the only argument really relevant is can sagging trusses put a pulling force on the columns, and if they could why did the connections not fail first? Can you answer that, without telling me to read some link you provide?

From NIST themselves...

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC Towers Investigation

Originally posted by ANOK

Can you answer that, without telling me to read some link you provide?

Gradually applied load....... shock load.


Your question is answered.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by coven83
I think the best explanation for all of the odd occurrences that happened that day comes from Judy Wood

We're sorry, but Judy Wood's "work" isn't accepted in the 9/11 research community. She is a proven disinformation artist. Please check your facts and try your post again.


Great pictues, OP.

edit on 25-7-2012 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)

First of all I don't believe you speak for the whole 9-11 research community, so you should check your ego at the door.

Secondly I cannot check "facts" from a thread full of "theory's" . I just presented my opinion, calm your nerves.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ANOK

Can you answer that, without telling me to read some link you provide?

Gradually applied load....... shock load.

Your question is answered.

No that does not answer the question lol. Seriously?

What load? The load didn't change. Maybe you keep forgetting, even if the load did change, the trusses were SAGGING from heat. Sorry for the caps but I want to be sure you don't skip that word. Why on Gods Earth would the load effect the columns when you have the sagging truss and connections before you get to the columns. You also forget FoS that I keep mentioning that seems to go in one ear and out the other. The columns and the floor assemblies were designed to hold far more weight, pressure, than they actually did. Any part of the structure could be 'overloaded' and not fail.

The factor of safety also known as Safety Factor, is used to provide a design margin over the theoretical design capacity to allow for uncertainty in the design process. The uncertainty could be any one of a number of the components of the design process including calculations, material strengths, duty, manufacture quality. The value of the safety factor is related to the lack of confidence in the design process. The simplest interpretation of the Factor of Safety is

FoS = Strength of Component / Load on component

If a component needs to withstand a load of 100 Newtons and a FoS of 4 is selected then it is designed with strength to support 400 Newtons...

www.roymech.co.uk...

Structural steelwork in buildings Factor of Safety - FOS- 4 - 6

Factors of Safety - FOS - are important in engineering design

Hands up if you think out of the sagging truss, the connections, and the columns, the columns were the weak point that would fail first?

Originally posted by ANOK
The load didn't change.

You are forgetting 300,000 lbs of load change.

The applied truss loads also changed from a vertical load on the column to an inward tension load on the column.

Both the load and force vector changed.

reply to post by plube


All of the bits of steel UB must be the steel that was ejected out from the building otherwise it would be much more bent up. This actually supports a claim of an explosion at the top of the buildling causing this ejection otherwise the steel would be much more mangled than it is.

Technicly, nearly all the steel should be mangled to the max if was under the falling floors. It should all be squashed flat. The fact that its not indicates that there was little weight on top of it and why would this be? pulverisation of the concrete perhaps? If so, why was it so pulvarised and not in the form of large broken up pieces of concrete slab 4 inches thick?

reply to post by Six Sigma


Could i ask you for a link or a source for the pic of the steel over the wood....judging by the black and white photo...is it something to do with hiroshima or nagasaki....I am curious about that photo.

reply to post by waypastvne

The seat is from the same section of the seat image ....then the second section is further down...yet the angled seats are still almost at 90degree to the column...now can you not use derogatory statements and have a decent conversation otherwise consider yourself ignored in this thread,,,,and go talk to the wind.

I am not being deceptive here...i am presenting the images as they are...not going to change a thing...add anything....or take away anything from the images i present in this thread.

If it is deception you want go somewhere else....I at least will allow people to have the intelligence to analyze the images without the patronizing remarks.

choice is yours...be civil...or go somewhere else....also...all viewpoints considered...whether it be nukes,thermite,gravity or little green men....everyone is open to express their opinion as long as it is respectful to others.

So are you saying i was trying to be deceitful or that i was showing one part of a larger picture.

reply to post by coven83


Just to let you know...IMHO all things are open here....no matter what...it took more energy that gravity alone to do some of this damage....Also i had made the thread before with a lot more images...and was informed of the apparent huge underground fire that were going on by some one from the OS....but when i look at the collapses....the fires were completely extinguished when he building collapsed....now i have fought forest fires and i know how fire can burn for a long time under the forest floor especially in bogs and such...but these are after an extended burn time above ground and the heat is stored to slowly feed....So i want to know the source which maintained the temps for so long after the collapse....Some people have said severed gas mains...well rest assured the NY authorities would have turn off the gas right away after the impacts....that would be standard procedure for rescuers safety.

reply to post by learnatic


sorry i am not understanding your thinking...this is structural steel...it is not flimsy bit of tin....IT supported the mass of the entire building for 40yrs...why would it get deformed so bad...now all throughout time here...it is mentioned over and over...the dynamic load could no longer be supported...the truss seats failed...the floors came crashing down...therefore...the truss seats should show deformation which truly represents that occurrence should it not?

also time and time again it gets mentioned steel did not melt...and there wasn't any molten metal...or explosions...but from just the images so far it seems this concepts are not fitting the reality of what we are seeing in the steel...I will be putting up so much more and you will have loads of opportunity to evaluate...So from your statement there is now explosions involved. I thought explosions were a no no...Also if things are being dispersed laterally ....then where are the forces for this action coming from.

This is what should have been talked about in the first place...all the steel that was just packed up...shipped out...and destroyed.....a lot of these images were released under the FOIA It changes things doesn't it when we start to actually look at the evidence.....and every piece of steel is evidence...and can actually lead to how the collapses progressed

Also earlier was mentioned about building seven...i am collecting steel images together from just that builing to be examined here also....like i stated...i have now gather approximately 20,000 images of the steel.

you also make a very valid point on the concrete issue...why did the mass of the concrete not mangle even more of the steel and where are the pieces....starred that posting thanks for the thoughts.

Originally posted by waypastvne
You are forgetting 300,000 lbs of load change.

From what?

The applied truss loads also changed from a vertical load on the column to an inward tension load on the column.

Both the load and force vector changed.

Neither would cause the much more massive columns to be pulled in by sagging trusses. Sagging trusses can not put a pulling force on the columns. Sagging is not going to change the tension, the angle of the connection are not going to change. Also just the tension changing would not cause failure. Once again IF anything failed it would not be the columns, do you not understand where the weak points were? You seemed to know just fine when you used to claim the connections were the weak points.

Keep trying though.